Ethereum wallet maconnais
28 comments
Guiminer connection problems litecoin exchange
Lousander Feen, Michael W. They explain why the late rock band Nirvana is more important to your future than any political campaign, even if you hate their music.
True liberty comes from not participating in the election results. Part 1 of the audio version, 3hr 7min megs download HERE. Part 2 of the audio version, 2hr 27min 97megs download HERE. Part 3 of the audio version, 1hr 27min 53megs download HERE. Play in new window Download. First and foremost, let me say that Hans-Hermann Hoppe has made a significant contribution to the cause of liberty.
However those names belong to men, not gods. Each and every one of them was wrong about something. A major aspect of the liberty mission is to hone our philosophy and perfect our message. Every time a blade is sharpened, some of the metal of that blade is removed. The blade cannot get sharper without tearing away some of the existing metal. This is my goal in writing this article. It is not to destroy any of the great work that Hoppe has done, it is simply to improve the tip of the blade.
Where A is our current situation and B is the condition we desire, my disagreement with Hoppe is in essence, a disagreement on the path to get from point A to point B.
My disagreement is not in the details of A nor B. They have all expressed the belief that moving from our current situation to the final situation that we all desire, can be achieved through a series of steps, such as deregulation, privatization, elections, and reductions in the size and scope of government.
I suggest that many if not most libertarians have been fooled into believing that government can be slowly disassembled. The argument often goes something like this; being beaten by a master once a week is better than being beaten five times a week. And being beaten once a month is better than being beaten once a week. For me, this thinking is backwards and damages our chances of freedom.
Even if the beatings could be stopped, I will not be satisfied so long as the master lives. My goal is not to reduce the beatings to a tolerable level. My goal is to destroy this Beast that seeks to be the Master of Humanity. In that article Hoppe attempts to show how libertarian principles can be applied to the existing structure of government resulting in a more honest and economically viable immigration policy. When I compare the existing policies, as applied by western governments, with those proposed by Hoppe, I am forced by his shear logic, to agree.
Milton Friedman was part of a team of economists that invented the system we have now, where the tax is taken slowly over the course of the year through a payroll withholding system that becomes almost invisible and practically painless.
Then on that wonderful day that the taxes are due, most Americans actually get a dribble of money back from the government. How could a beating be more comfortable? Yet it remains a beating. He did this without considering the simple fact that his solution helped a small gang of thieves continue their quest of the domination of humanity by making their whip sting less. Beyond what I have pointed out, namely that Hoppe starts with a flawed system based on aggression and domination, and then points out a way to make that flawed system work better, Hoppe also makes some mistakes.
This is an odd claim seeing that we have such blaring examples of overbearing governments depending on powerful walls to, at first, keep out the immigrants. Nero used the city walls of Rome to divide and corral the poor, then he burned them alive and stole their land for his new palace.
The Iron Curtain was poorly billed as protection, but was obviously built to keep the slaves inside. On the other hand, migration of people has been a regular part of the human experience, including the time before the State existed, and in no way can be tied to the rise of the State nor to its expansion. The most extensive expansion of government power has come during the last years, while western governments tried franticly to control and regulate immigration.
Simply stated, it does not follow. No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant. And if all places are already occupied, all migration is migration by invitation only. Lets not allow Hoppe to distract the conversation with an esoteric question based on positive rights.
This is circular logic. Or think of it like this; there is enough government land in the western US to give almost half acre to every occupant of Europe without taking one inch of land from an existing resident of the US.
Even in Europe where governments own relatively little or no land, no libertarian that I know is arguing that immigrants moving into Europe should be able to just take the land of those already in Europe.
So again, this is simply a distraction from the conversation. Those who use false dichotomies in arguments and pudding cups. The fourth paragraph is a very odd statement for an an-cap libertarian to make.
Yet this is certainly erroneous. From the fact that government property is illegitimate because it is based on prior expropriations, it does not follow that it is un-owned and free-for-all. It has been funded through local, regional, national or federal tax payments, and it is the payers of these taxes, then, and no one else, who are the legitimate owners of all public property.
They cannot exercise their right — that right has been arrogated by the State — but they are the legitimate owners. My second question; if tax payers own public land because the US government killed or moved the previous occupants, do American tax payers also own the land bombed and irradiated by that same government in other lands? If this notion is true, all aspects of an-cap thought are flawed and governments are legitimate, because all rights are based on ownership.
By libertarian property rights theory, neither government has any right to the land, much less the grandchild of a person who was robbed to pay for a war. All western land claimed by the US government is open for homesteading, according to libertarian property rights theory. Government land claims are no more legitimate now than when kings and popes made the same claims in the days of John Loche. Neither the bartender nor the other patrons knew where the money came from. Would your grandson have the right to hunt down the grandchild of every patron of the bar and demand the price of a drink?
Because there is no such thing as collective guilt. The only people responsible for robbing you, and therefore restitution, were the original thieves. If there is no collective guilt, how can there be collective property ownership based on theft and coercion, and how can that be inherited?
The fifth paragraph begins with another misdirection. There exists no right to immigration. There only exists the right to trade, buy or rent various places. It also distorts the concept of immigration and assumes immigration as happening when real estate is removed from the ownership of one person and given somehow to another. In the real world, immigration generally means a person leaves the geographical area where they previously lived and travel to another place, usually for economic reasons.
Once in the new area they seek a method of survival, be that work or assistance from someone else. Presently the only thing standing in the way of this happening naturally, as it has for millions of years, is coercive governments and the bigotry and fears of those who support coercive governments.
Immigrants into an economically more prosperous area, assuming no interference by governments, typically move into low income areas where they help each other survive while filling the lower paying jobs. After a few generations they typically advance economically until they can begin buying land and opening businesses.
Without coercive government interfering, immigrants are a positive addition to the economy, until the market changes and it becomes more suitable to immigrate to a different area. This process takes nothing from the existing populace, but adds to the economy by providing cheep labor and a wider consumer base.
What about immigration if the State acted like the manager of the community property jointly owned and funded by the members of a housing association or gated community? Neither can a government function outside of its nature. Government is a collection of thieves, always bound by their nature, to rob and coerce the maximum amount that they can get away with, before their host population catches on and throws them out.
Then it will be right as rain, and butterflies can go back to farting gumdrops. That is an aspect of the nature of power-hungry thieves. It cannot and will not change. With the nature of government better understood, one should have a look at the nature of this religion I call the State.
The State is like a virus of the mind. It can only replicate itself in the body of a host and it will adapt in any way it needs to survive. Unlike a virus which sometimes kills it host by happenstance, it is my contention that the State actively seeks to kill its host. I contend the purpose of the State is to live as long as possible, infect every human mind, and ultimately kill every human. However you believe humanity came to be here on this earth, the State is the enemy of that god or evolutionary process.
Being a theist, I believe God made us. Therefore I believe anything government does is based on evil, and any support of the idea of the State is blasphemous. Theorizing a way government can act responsibly is silly at best, and dangerous the rest of the time. You may be asking some questions. For example; if deregulation, privatization, elections, and reductions in the size and scope of government only make slavery more comfortable and actually empower tyranny, what can be done?
To this I would answer, no. All is not lost. At this point in my article I have expended over words. That in mind, I will spare the reader the burden of yet another words describing the future, where governments will further expand and consume one another, until there is perhaps somewhere from one to five government left, brutally fighting for dominance.
And as these monsters thrash about slaughtering at will, humanity has but one hope. Coercive governments continue because people have faith in their god, the State. Faith in the State continues so long as people believe the lies of government. As the lies of government become thinner and thinner, and as government becomes more and more oppressive, more people will see government for what it really is; a gang of thieves and nothing more.
As more eyes open to this truth, faith in the State will crumble.